John, I was not trying to attribute geodesics to Fuller and Kahn. Rather, I
was trying to give context to Brian's experiments/explorations. I'll be the
first to admit that I know very little about Fuller's work and about
geodesics. Even the learning of Kahn's work is a constant 'continued
education' course for me.
I saw Brian's posted images and I immediately thought of the Atomium, then,
while eating lunch, I thought of the City Tower project and the
Mitchell/Guirgola 1970 derivative. I thought these examples worth mentioning
(to Brian) because the software he's using seems to be a good match for
'drawing' 'molecular' looking buildings like the Atomium.
Since the Atomium is the most real building in the above set, it now makes
me see the City Tower in a related light that wasn't there before this
discussion. It's the building designs I'm most interested in here; the
historical veracity is secondary (as far as I'm concerned here).
John, you can write about personalities all you want, but don't assume too
much about me and my best ideas, which I'm kind of surprised that you even
think I have some. Name some of my best ideas and I'll probably be able to
attribute them.
Do you always assume you know so much John? When is your humility ever
evident? Nonetheless, you do give bullshit a very distinctive taste.
was trying to give context to Brian's experiments/explorations. I'll be the
first to admit that I know very little about Fuller's work and about
geodesics. Even the learning of Kahn's work is a constant 'continued
education' course for me.
I saw Brian's posted images and I immediately thought of the Atomium, then,
while eating lunch, I thought of the City Tower project and the
Mitchell/Guirgola 1970 derivative. I thought these examples worth mentioning
(to Brian) because the software he's using seems to be a good match for
'drawing' 'molecular' looking buildings like the Atomium.
Since the Atomium is the most real building in the above set, it now makes
me see the City Tower in a related light that wasn't there before this
discussion. It's the building designs I'm most interested in here; the
historical veracity is secondary (as far as I'm concerned here).
John, you can write about personalities all you want, but don't assume too
much about me and my best ideas, which I'm kind of surprised that you even
think I have some. Name some of my best ideas and I'll probably be able to
attribute them.
Do you always assume you know so much John? When is your humility ever
evident? Nonetheless, you do give bullshit a very distinctive taste.